¹ For a more general perspective, see Dupuy, P.-M., “Le juge et la règle de droit”, RGDIP, Vol. 93, 1989, PP. 570–597Google Scholar; ibid., “Les ‘considérations élémentaires d'humanité’ dans la jurisprudence de la Cour interna tionale de justice”, in: Dupuy, R.-J. (ed.), Mélanges en l'honneur de Nicolas Valticos. Droit et justice, Pedone, Paris, 1999, pp. 117–130Google Scholar; Abi-Saab, G., “The International Court as a world court”, in Lowe, V.. & Fitzmaurice, M. (eds), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Grotius Publications, Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 3–16Google Scholar; Gowlland-Debbas, V., “Judicial insights into funda mental values and interests of the international community”, in Muller, A.S., Raic, D. & Thuranszky, J.M. (eds), The International Court of Justice: Its Future Role after Fifty Years, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague/Boston/London, 1997, pp. 327–366.Google Scholar

² Lauterpacht, H., The Development of International Law by the International Court, Stevens & Sons, London, 1958, in particular pp. 6–22Google Scholar, and pp. 61–71; McWhinney, E., “The legislative role of the World Court in an era of transition”, in Bernhardt, R., Geek, W.K., Jaenicke, G.. & Steinberger, H. (eds), Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler, Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983, pp. 567–579Google Scholar; O. Schachter, “Creativity and objectivity in interna tional tribunals”, ibid., pp. 813–821; Condorelli, L., “L'autorité de la décision des juridictions internationales permanentes”, in Société Française pour le Droit International, La juridiction internationale permanente, Colloque de Lyon, Pédone, Paris, 1986, pp. 277–313Google Scholar; Jennings, R.Y., “The judicial function and the rule of law in international relations”, in International Law at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago, Vol. III, Milano – Dott. A. Giuffrè Editore, 1987, pp. 139–151Google Scholar; Mendelson, M., “The International Court of Justice and the sources of international law”, in Lowe V., V. & Fitzmaurice, M. (eds), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour ofSir Robert Jennings, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 63–89Google Scholar; F. Francioni, “International ‘soft law’: A contemporary assessment”, ibid., pp. 167–178; Quintanan, J.J., “The International Court of Justice and the formulation of general international law: The law of maritime delimitation as an example”, in: Müller, A.S. et al. (eds), The International Court of Justice. Its Future Role after Fifty Years, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 367–381Google Scholar; Rosenne, S., The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–1996, Vol. III, The Hague/Boston/London, Martinus Nijhoff, 1997, in particular pp. 1606–1615 and 1628–1643Google Scholar; Shahabuddeen, M., Precedent in the World Court, Grotius Publications, Cambridge University Press, 1996, in particular pp. 1–31 and pp. 67–96.Google Scholar

³ On the importance of international case law in the field of humanitarian law or human rights, see Blishchenko, I.P., “Judicial decisions as a source of international humanitarian law”, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Editoriale Scientifica S.r.l., Naples, 1979, pp. 41–51Google Scholar; Abi-Saab, R., “The ‘general principles’ of humanitarian law according to the International Court of Justice”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 766, 1987, pp. 381–389Google Scholar; Rodley, N.S., “Human rights and humanitarian intervention: The case law of the World Court”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1989, pp. 321–333Google Scholar; S.M. Schwebel, “The treatment of human rights and of aliens in the International Court of Justice”, in Lowe, V. & Fitzmaurice, M. (eds), Fifty Years of the International Court of justice. Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 327–350.Google Scholar

⁴ Corfu Channel Case (Merits), ICJ Reports 1949, p. 22.

⁵ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

⁶ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.

⁷ These cases have been the object of the most abundant literature written on the cases of the Court. For the Case concerning Military Activities in Nicaragua, see in particular the special issue of the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, 1987; Kahn, P.W., “From Nuremberg to The Hague: The United States position in Nicaragua v. United States”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, 1987, pp. 1–62Google Scholar; Eisemann, P.-M., “L'arrêt de la CIJ dans l'affaire des activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci”, AFDI, Vol. XXXII, 1986, pp. 153–189Google Scholar; Verhoeven, J., “Le droit, le juge et la violence: Les arrêts Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis”, RGDIP, Vol. 91, 1987, pp. 1159–1239Google Scholar; Gill, T.D., Litigation Strategy at the International Court: A Case Study of the Nicaragua v. United States Dispute, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1989Google Scholar; Czaplinski, W., “Sources of international law in the Nicaragua case”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1989, pp. 85–99Google Scholar; Lang, C., L'affaire Nicaragua/Etats-Unis devant la Cour internationale de justice, LGDJ, Bibliothèque de droit international, Vol. 100, Paris, 1990Google Scholar; Crawford, J., “Military activities against Nicaragua case (Nicaragua v. United States)”, in Bernhardt, Rudolf (ed.), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 3, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Elsevier, Amsterdam/Lausanne/New York/Oxford/Shannon/Singapore/Tokyo, 1997, pp. 371–378.Google Scholar For the case on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, see the numerous and extensive contributions published in the special issue of the Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge, No. 823, 1997; L. Boisson de Chazournes. & Sands, P. (eds), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.Google Scholar See also: Perrin de Brichambaut, M., “Les avis consultatifs rendus par la CIJ le 8 juillet 1996 sur la licéité de l'utilisation des armes nucléaires dans un conflit armé (OMS) et sur la licéité de la menace et de l'emploi d'armes nucléaires (AGNU)”, AFDI, Vol. XLII, 1996, pp. 315–336Google Scholar; V. Coussirat-Coustère, “Armes nucléaires et droit international: A propos des avis consultatifs du 8 juillet 1996 de la Cour internationale de Justice”, ibid., pp. 337–356; Falk, R.A., “Nuclear weapons, international law and the World Court: A historic encounter”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 91, 1997, pp. 64–75Google Scholar; M.J. Matheson, “The Opinions of the International Court of Justice on the threat or use of nuclear weapons”, ibid., pp. 417–435.

⁸ See notes 6 and 7. For a general appraisal of the legality of nuclear weapons, see also: Schwarzenberger, G., The Legality of Nuclear Weapons, Stevens & Sons, London, 1958Google Scholar; Singh, M.N., Nuclear Weapons and International Law, Stevens & Sons, London, 1959Google Scholar; Brownlie, I., “Some legal aspects of the use of nuclear weapons”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1965, pp. 437–451Google Scholar; Rosas, A., “International law and the use of nuclear weapons”, in: Essays in Honour of Erik Casrén, Finnish Branch of the International Law Association, Helsinki, 1979, pp. 73–95Google Scholar; Falk, R.A., Meyrowitz, L.. & Sanderson, J., Nuclear Weapons and International Law, Center of International Studies, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, 1981Google Scholar; David, E., “A propos de certaines justifications théoriques à l'emploi de l'arme nucléaire”, in Swinarski, C. (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of lean Pictet, International Committee of the Red Cross, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva/The Hague, 1984, pp. 325–342Google Scholar; S. McBride, “The legality of weapons of social destruction”, ibid., pp. 401–409; Green, L.C., The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 2nd ed., Juris Publishing, Manchester University Press, 2000, pp. 128–132.Google Scholar

⁹ Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 15.

¹⁰ Case concerning application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia) (Preliminary objections), ICJ Reports 1996, p. 595.

¹¹ On the historical development of international humanitarian law, see: Best, G., Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflicts, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London, 1980Google Scholar; Haggenmacher, P., Orotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1983Google Scholar; Pictet, J., “The formation of international humanitarian law”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 244, 1985, pp. 3–24Google Scholar; Draper, G.I.A.D., “The development of international humanitarian law”, in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, Henry Dunant Institute/UNESCO, Geneva/Paris, 1988, pp. 67–90Google Scholar; Best, G., “The restraint of war in historical and philosophical perspective”, in Delissen, A.J.M.. & Tanja, G.J. (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1991, pp. 3–26Google Scholar; Howard, M., Andreopoulos, G.J. & Shulman, M.R., The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World, Yale University Press, New Haven/London, 1994Google Scholar; Green, L.C., The Contemporary Law of'Armed Conflict, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 20–53.Google Scholar

¹² See on this distinction: Nahlik, S.E., “Droit dit ‘de Genève’ et droit dit ‘de La Haye’: Unicité ou dualité?”, AFDI, Vol. XXIV, 1978, pp. 1–27Google Scholar; Bugnion, F., “Law of Geneva and Law of The Hague”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 844, 2001, pp. 901–922.Google Scholar

¹³ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 256, para. 75.

¹⁴ Ibid.

¹⁵ Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, pp. 443–444.

¹⁶ Ibid., p. 257, para. 79.

¹⁷ On the relationships between human rights and humanitarian law, see: Calogeropoulos-Stratis, A.S., Droit humanitaire et droits de l'homme: La protection de la personne en période de conflit armé, Graduate Institute of International Studies, A.W. Sijthoff, Geneva/Leiden, 1980, p. 119Google Scholar; Dinstein, Y., “Human rights in armed conflict: International humanitarian law”, in Meron, T. (ed.), Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984, pp. 345–368Google Scholar; Eide, A., “The laws of war and human rights: Differences and convergences”, in Swinarski, C. (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of lean Pictet, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 675–698Google Scholar; A.H. Robertson, “Humanitarian law and human rights”, ibid., pp. 793–802; El Kouhene, M., Les garanties fondamentales de la personne en droit humanitaire et en droit de l'homme, Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1986Google Scholar; Doswald-Beck, L. & Vite, S., “International humanitarian law and human rights law”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 800, 1993. PP. 94–119Google Scholar; Meron, T., “The convergence between human rights and humanitarian law”, in Warner, D. (ed.), Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: The Quest for Universality, Martinus Nijoff, The Hague, 1997, pp. 97–105Google Scholar; Vinuesa, R.E.., “Interface, correspondence and convergence of human rights and international law”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1, 1998, pp. 69–110Google Scholar; Kolb, R., “The relationship between international humanitarian law and human rights law: A brief history of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1949 Geneva Conventions”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324, 1998, pp. 409–419.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 240, para. 25. For a commentary on this passage of the Advisory Opinion, see V. Gowlland-Debbas, “The right to life and genocide: The Court and international public policy”, in L. Boisson de Chazournes. & Sands, P. (eds), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 315–337.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See on this question: Dinstein, Y., “The international law of civil wars and human rights”, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, Vol. 6, 1976, pp. 62–80Google Scholar; Junod, S., “Human rights and Protocol II”, IRRC, No. 236, 1983, pp. 246–254Google Scholar; Meron, Th., Human Rights in Internal Strife: Their International Protection, Hersh Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures, Grotius Publications, Cambridge, 1987Google Scholar; Burnos, H.S., “The application of international humanitarian law as compared to human rights law in situations qualified as internal armed conflict, internal disturbances and tensions, or public emergency, with special reference to war crimes and political crimes”, in Kalshoven, F.. & Sandoz, Y. (eds), Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, 1989, pp. 1–30Google Scholar; P.H. Kooijmans, “In the shadowland between civil war and civil strife: Some reflections on the standard-setting process”, in: Delissen, A.J.M.. & Tanja, G.J. (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, op. cit. (note 11), pp. 225–247Google Scholar; Hampson, F., “Human rights and humanitarian law in internal conflicts”, in: Meyer, M.A. (ed.), Armed Conflict and the New Law, The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, Vol. 11, 1993, pp. 53–82Google Scholar; Gasser, H.P., “A measure of humanity in internal disturbances and tensions: Proposals for a code of conduct”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 262, 1988, pp. 38–58Google Scholar; Meron, T., “Draft model declaration in internal strife”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 262, 1988, pp. 59–104Google Scholar; Eide, A., Rosas, A. & Meron, T., “Combating lawlessness in gray zone conflicts through minimum humanitarian standards”, American journal of International Law, Vol. 89, 1995, pp. 215–223Google Scholar; R. Abi-Saab, “Human rights and humanitarian law in internal conflicts”, in Warner, D. (ed.), Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: The Quest for Universality, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 107–123Google Scholar; C. Sommaruga, “Humanitarian law and human rights in the legal arsenal of the ICRC”, ibid., pp. 125–133; Momtaz, D., “The minimum humanitarian rules applicable in periods of internal tension and strife”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324, 1998, pp. 455–462Google Scholar; Eide, A., “Internal disturbances and tensions”, in: International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 241–256Google Scholar; Hadden, T.. & Harvey, C., “The law of internal crisis and conflict”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 833, 1999, pp. 119–134Google Scholar

²⁰ See: Ramcharan, B.G., “The role of international bodies in the implementation and enforcement of humanitarian law and human rights law in non-international armed conflict”, American University Law Review, Vol. 33, 1983, pp. 99–115Google Scholar; Sassoli, M., “Mise en oeuvre du droit international humanitaire et du droit international des droits de l'homme: Une comparaison”, ASDI, Vol. XLIII, 1987, pp. 24–61Google Scholar; Cerna, C., “Human rights in armed conflict: Implementation of international humanitarian law norms by regional intergovernmental human rights bodies”, in Kalshoven, F. & Sandoz, Y. (eds), Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, op. cit. (note 19), pp. 31–67Google Scholar; R. Wieruszewski, “Application of international humanitarian law and human rights law: Individual complaints”, ibid., pp. 441–458; Weissbrodt, D. & Hicks, P.L., “Implementation of human rights and humanitarian law in situations of armed conflicts”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 800, 1993, pp. 94–119Google Scholar; O'Donnell, D., “Trends in the application of international humanitarian law by United Nations human rights mechanisms”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324, 1998, pp. 481–503Google Scholar; L. Zegveld, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and international humanitarian law: A comment on the Tablada Case”, ibid., pp. 505–511; A. Reidy, “The approach of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights to international humanitarian law”, ibid., pp. 513–529.

²¹ The Corfu Channel Case (Merits), op. cit. (note 4), p. 22.

²² In the course of its Memorial to the Court, the United Kingdom argued that: “since the adoption of the Convention in 1907, States have in their practice treated its provisions as having been received into general international law. Even Germany, who in the wars of 1914–1918 and 1939–1945 was guilty of serious breaches of the Convention, publicly professed to be complying with its provisions. The Allied Powers in both wars held themselves bound by the Convention and throughout observed the provisions relating to notification”: ICJ Pleadings, Vol. 1, p. 39.

²³ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit (note 5), p. 112, § 215.

²⁴ For a commentary, see: Meron, T., “The Geneva Conventions as Customary Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 81, 1987, pp. 348–370Google Scholar; Abi-Saab, R., “The ‘general principles’ of humanitarian law according to the International Court of Justice”, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 381–389.Google Scholar

²⁵ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), p. 113, para. 218.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, op. cit. (note 6), p. 580.

²⁸ Cited in: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 103–104, para. 218.

²⁹ Ibid., p. 104.

³⁰ For a critique of this approach, see in particular: D'Amato, A., “Trashing customary international law”, American Journal International Law, Vol. 81, 1987, pp. 101–105Google Scholar; Clark, R.G., “Treaty and custom”, in Boisson de Chazourne, L.. & Sands, P. (eds), International Law, the International Court of justice and Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 171–180.Google Scholar

³¹ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 257, para. 79.

³² Ibid., p. 258, para. 80.

³³ Ibid., para. 81.

³⁴ Ibid., para. 82.

³⁵ Ibid., p. 259, para. 84.

³⁶ See, however, the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma, considering that: “Additional Protocol I (…) constitutes a restatement and a reaffirmation of customary law rules based on the earlier Geneva and Hague Conventions. To date, 143 States have become parties to the Protocol, and the customary force of the provisions of the Protocol are not based on the formal staus of the Protocol itself”: ibid., p. 580.

³⁷ North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Danemark/Netherlands), ICJ Reports 1969, pp. 41–42, paras. 71 and 73.

³⁸ See on this question: Cassese, A., “The Geneva Protocols of 1977 on the humanitarian law of armed conflict and customary international law”, UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 1984, pp. 57–118Google Scholar; Greig, D.W., “The underlying principles of international humanitarian law”, Australian Year Book of International Law, Vol. 9, 1985, pp. 46–85Google Scholar; Aldrich, G.H., “Progressive development of the laws of war: A reply to criticisms of the 1977 Geneva Protocol I”, Virginia journal of International Law, Vol. 27, 1986, pp. 693–720Google Scholar; Greenwood, C., “Customary law status of the 1977 Geneva Protocols”, in Delissen, A.J.M. & Tanja, G.J. (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, op. cit. (note 11), pp. 93–114Google Scholar; G. Abi-Saab, “The 1977 Additional Protocols and general international law”, ibid., pp. 115–126; Penna, L.R., “Customary international law and Protocol I: An analysis of some provisions”, in Swinarski, C. (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 201–225.Google Scholar

³⁹ See among the classic literature: Verdross, A., “Jus dispositivum and jus cogens in international law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60, 1966, pp. 55–63Google Scholar; Virally, M., “Réflexions sur le jus cogens”, AFDI, Vol. XII, 1966, pp. 5–29Google Scholar; Suy, E., “The concept of jus cogens in public international law”, in Lagonissi Conference on International Law, Geneva, 1967, pp. 17–77Google Scholar; Marek, K., “Contribution à l'étude du jus cogens en droit international”, in Recueil d'études de droit international en hommage à Paul Guggenheim, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1968, pp. 426–459Google Scholar; Gomez Robledo, A., “Le ius cogens international: sa genèse, sa nature, ses fonctions”, RCADI, 1981, III, pp. 9–217Google Scholar; L. Alexidze, “Legal nature of jus cogens in contemporary international law”, ibid., pp. 223–268; G. Gaja “Jus cogens beyond the Vienna Convention”, ibid., pp. 271–316. See also: Macdonald, R. St. J., “Fundamental norms in contemporary international law”, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. XXV, 1987, pp. 115–149Google Scholar; Christenson, G.A., “jus cogens: Guarding interests fundamental to international society”, Virginia journal of International Law, Vol. 28, 1988, pp. 585–628Google Scholar; Danilenko, G.M., “International jus cogens: Issues of law-making”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 2, 1991, pp. 42–65Google Scholar; Annacker, C., “The legal régime of erga omnes obligations in international law”, Austrian Journal of Public International Law, Vol. 46, 1994, pp. 131–166.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See also Article 53 of the 1986 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations.

⁴¹ Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Compagny Limited (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ Reports 1970, p. 32, para. 33.

⁴² Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), p. 100, para. 190.

⁴³ Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Reports 1995, p. 102, para. 29.

⁴⁴ Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 23.

⁴⁵ Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Limited (Belgium v. Spain), op. cit. (note 41), p. 32, para. 33.

⁴⁶ Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, op. cit. (note 10), p. 616, para. 31.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 258, para. 83.

⁴⁹ See Werksman, J. & Khalastchi, R., “Nuclear weapons and jus cogens: Peremptory norms and justice preempted?”, in Boisson de Chazournes, L. & Sands, P. (eds), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 181–198.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Legality ofthe Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 257, para. 79 (emphasis added).

⁵¹ Condorelli, L., “Nuclear weapons: A weighty matter for the International Court of Justice”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 319, 1997, p. 14.Google Scholar

⁵² “Il ne fait pas de doute pour moi que la plupart des principes et règles du droit humanitaire et, en tout cas, les deux principes interdisant l'un l'emploi des armes à effets indiscriminés et l'autre celui des armes causant des maux superflus, font partie du jus cogens. La Cour a évoqué cette question dans le présent avis; mais elle a toutefois déclaré qu'elle n'avait pas à se prononcer sur ce point dans la mesure où la question de la nature du droit humanitaire applicable aux armes nucléaires ne rentrait pas dans le cadre de la demande que lui a adressée l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. La Cour n'en a pas moins expressément considéré ces règles fondamentales comme ’des règles intransgressibles du droit international coutumier’”, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), para. 21, p. 273.

⁵³ Ibid., p. 496. He notices that Judge Roberto Ago considered in 1971 in his course at The Hague Academy of International Law that the rules of jus cogens include: “the fundamental rules concerning the safeguarding of peace, and notably those which forbid recourse to force or threat of force; fundamental rules of a humanitarian nature (prohibition of genocide, slavery and racial discrimination, protection of essential rights of the human person in time of peace and war)”.

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 574. This interpretation has likewise gained the recognition of the majority of legal opinion. See in addition to the references already mentioned: Abi-Saab, G., “The specificities of humanitarian law”, in Swinarski, C. (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 265–280Google Scholar; Hannikainen, L., Peremptory Norms (jus Cogens) in International Law, Lakimiesliiton Kustannus, Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company, Helsinki, 1988Google Scholar; Kasto, J., lus Cogens and Humanitarian Law, International Law Series, Vol. 2, London, 1994.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), p. 113, para. 218.

⁵⁶ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 257, para. 78.

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ As early as 1927, the Greco-German Mixed Tribunal considered in the case of Coenca Brothers v. Germany that «il est un des principes généralement reconnus par le droit des gens que les belligérants doivent respecter, pour autant que possible, la population civile ainsi que les biens appartenant aux civils»: Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, Vol. 7, p. 683. See also: Greco-German Arbitral Tribunal, Kiriadolou v. Germany, 10 May 1930, ibid., Vol. 10, p. 100; District Crt. of Tokyo, , Shimoda case, 7 December 1963, ILR, 32, pp. 629–632.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ ICTY, case IT-95–11-R61, 8 March 1996, Prosecutor v. Martic, para. 10.

⁶⁰ See in particular: Kalshoven, F., The Law of Warfare. A Summary of its Recent History and Trends in Development, A.W. Sijthoff/Henry Dunant Institute, Leiden/Geneva, 1973Google Scholar; Rosenblad, E., International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Some Aspects of the Principle of Distinction and Related Problems, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1979Google Scholar; Baxter, R.R., “The duties of combatants and the conduct of hostilities (Law of the Hague)”, in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 93–133.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See for example the texts cited by Judge Weeramantry in his Dissenting Opinion: Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Article 25) in Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land; 1907 Hague Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Article 1); 1923 Hague Rules of Aerial Warfare (Articles 22 & 24); League of Nations Assembly Resolution of 30 September 1928; United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 2444 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968 and 2675 (XXV) of 9 December 1970.

⁶² Articles 52–56 of Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Protocol II.

⁶³ Article 51(2) of Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Protocol II.

⁶⁴ Articles 51(6), 52(1), 53(c), 54(4), 55(2) and 56(4) of Protocol I.

⁶⁵ Article 51(4) and (5) of Protocol I.

⁶⁶ Cassese, A., “Means of warfare: the traditional and the new law”, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, Editoriale Scientifica, Naples, 1979, p. 164.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Doswald-Beck, L., “International humanitarian law and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 316, 1997, p. 37.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See: Cassese, A., “The prohibition of indiscriminate means of warfare”, in Akkermann, R.J.. (ed.), Declarations on Principle: A Quest for Universal Peace. Liber Amicorum Discipulorumque Prof. Dr. Bert V.A. Ruling, Leiden, 1977, pp. 171–194Google Scholar; Blix, H., “Area bombardment: rules and reasons”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 49, 1978, pp. 31–69.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See: Aubert, M., “The International Committee of the Red Cross and the problem of excessively injurious or indiscriminate weapons”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 279, 1990, pp. 477–497Google Scholar; Meyrowitz, H., “The principle of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. From the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 to Additional Protocol I of 1977”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 299, 1994, pp. 198–122.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 257, para. 78.

⁷¹ Article 23(e) of the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907.

⁷² Article 35(2) of Protocol I: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”.

⁷³ See in particular Blix, H., “Means and methods of combat”, in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 138–140.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 257, para. 78.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 402. See also: Dissenting Opinion of Judge Guillaume, ibid., p. 289; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins, ibid., pp. 586–587.

⁷⁶ See on this clause: Miyazaki, S., “The Martens Clause in international humanitarian law”, in: Swinarski, C. (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of lean Pictet, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 433–444Google Scholar; Ticehurst, R., “The Martens Clause and the laws of armed conflict”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 824, 1997, pp. 125–134.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 257, para. 78.

⁷⁸ Pictet, J., Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, Henry Dunant Institute, Geneva, 1985, p. 59.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, op. cit. (note 6), p. 406.

⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 408.

⁸¹ Loc. cit.

⁸² Ibid., p. 407.

⁸³ Ibid., p. 411.

⁸⁴ By seven votes to seven, the Court concludes with the President's casting vote that: “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake”. By doing so, the Court seems to blur the traditional distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. For a critical commentary on the position of the Court, see in particular: E. David, “Le statut des armes nucléaires à la lumière de l'avis de la CIJ du 8 juillet 1996”, in Boisson de Chazoumes, L.. & Sands, P. (eds), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 209–227Google Scholar; L. Condorelli, “Le droit international humanitaire, ou de l'exploration par la Cour d'une terra à peu près incognita pour elle”, ibid., pp. 228–246; C. Greewood, “jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion”, ibid., pp. 247–266; R. Müllerson, “On the relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the General Assembly Advisory Opinion”, ibid., pp. 267–274; J. Gardam, “Necessity and proportionality in jus ad bellum and jus in bello”, ibid., pp. 275–292. For an exercise of legal deconstruction of the so-called concept of State survival, see M.G. Kohen, “The notion of'State survival’ in international law”, ibid., pp. 293–314.

⁸⁵ Military and Paramilitary Activities in end against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 113–114, para. 218.

⁸⁶ Bond, J.E., “Internal conflict and Article Three of the Geneva Conventions”, Denver Law Journal, Vol. 48, 1971, pp. 263–285Google Scholar; Taubenfeld, H.T., “The applicability of the laws of war in civil war”, in: Moore, J.N. (ed.), Law and Civil War in the Modern World, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London, 1974, pp. 518–536Google Scholar; R.R. Baxter, “lus in bello Memo: The present and future law”, ibid., pp. 499–517; Lysaght, C., “The scope of Protocol II and its relation to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other human rights instruments”, American University Law Review, Vol. 33(1), 1983, pp. 9–27Google Scholar; S.S. junod, “Additional Protocol II: History and scope”, ibid., pp. 29–40; Abi-Saab, R., Droit humanitaire et conflits internes: Origine de la réglementation internationale, A. Pedone/Henry Dunant Institute, Paris/Geneva 1986Google Scholar; Abi-Saab, G., “Non-international armed conflicts”, in International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 217–239.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), p. 114, para. 218.

⁸⁸ Pictet, J. (ed.), Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Commentary, International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 1952, pp. 50 and 52.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Abi-Saab, R., “Humanitarian law and internal conflicts: The evolution of legal concern”, in Delissen, A.J.M. & Tanja, G.J. (eds), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, op. cit. (note 11), p. 223.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See, for example, in the context of rules applicable to the conduct of hostilities: ICTY, Case No. IT-94-I-AR72, Oct. 2,1995, Prosecutors, ladle, paras. 126–127. For a commentary on this case, see Greenwood, C., “International humanitarian law and the Tadic case”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 7, 1996, No. 2, pp. 265–283.Google Scholar For a general assessment of this trend, see also: Kalshoven, F., “Applicability of customary international law in non-international armed conflicts”, in: Cassese, A. (ed.), Current Problems of International Law: Essays on U.N. Law of Armed Conflict, Dott. A. Giuffre, Milan, 1975, pp. 267–285Google Scholar; Obradovic, K., “Les règles du droit international humanitaire relatives à la conduite des hostilités en période de conflits armés non-internationaux”, Yearbook of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 1989–1990, pp. 95–115Google Scholar; Myren, R.S., “Applying international laws of war to non-international armed conflicts: Past attempts, future strategies”, Netherlands International Law Review, 1990, pp. 347–371Google Scholar; Shaw, M.N., International Law, 4th ed., Grotius Publications, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 815–818.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, op. cit. (note 6), p. 259, para. 86.

⁹² For a commentary on this provision, see: L. Condorelli. & L. Boisson de Chazournes, «Quelques remarques à propos de l'obligation des Etats de ‘respecter et faire respecter’ le droit international humanitaire ‘en toute circonstance’ », in: Swinarski, C. (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 17–35Google Scholar; Kalshoven, F., “The undertaking to respect and ensure respect in all circumstances: From tiny seed to ripening fruit”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 2, 1999, pp. 3–61.Google Scholar

⁹³ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), p. 114, para. 220.

⁹⁴ Ibid.

⁹⁵ Ibid., p. 130, para. 256.

⁹⁶ Boisson de Chazournes, L. & Condorelli, L., “Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions revisited: Protecting collective interests”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 837, 2000, p. 69.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ For an in-depth study of the practical consequences of the obligation to respect and to ensure respect notably within the framework of the United Nations system, see the article by L. Boisson de Chazournes. & L. Condorelli cited above (note 96). See also: N. Levrat, “Les conséquences de l'engagement pris par les Hautes Parties Contractantes de ‘faire respecter’ les conventions humanitaires”, in Kalshoven, F.. & Sandoz, Y. (eds), Implementation of International Humanitarian Law, op. cit. (note 19), pp. 236–296Google Scholar; Sachariew, K., “State's entitlement to take action to enforce international humanitarian law”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 270, 1989, pp. 177–195Google Scholar; Gasser, H.P., “Ensuring respect for the Geneva Conventions and Protocols: The role of third Statesand the United Nations”, in: Fox, H.. & Meyer, M.A. (eds), Armed Conflict and the New Law, Vol. II, Effecting Compliance, The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, 1993, pp. 15–49Google Scholar; Palwankar, U., “Measures available to States for fulfilling their obligations to ensure respect for international humanitarian law”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 298, 1994, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 124–125, paras. 242–243.

⁹⁹ See on this question: Bettati, M. & Kouchner, B. (eds), Le devoir d'ingérence, Denoël, Paris, 1987Google Scholar; Domestici-Met, M.J., “Aspects juridiques récents de l'assistance humanitaire”, AFDI, 1989, pp. 117–148Google Scholar; Sandoz, Y., “‘Droit’ or ‘devoir d'ingérence’ and the right to assistance: The issues involved”, Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge/International Review of the Red Cross, No. 288, 1992, pp. 215–227Google Scholar; M. Torelli, “From humanitarian assistance to ‘intervention on humanitarian grounds’?”, ibid., pp. 228–248; D. Plattner, “Assistance to the civilian population: The development and present state of international humanitarian law”, ibid., pp. 249–263; Condorelli, L., “Intervention humanitaire et/ou assistance humanitaire? Quelques certitudes et beaucoup d'interrogations”, in Al-Nauimi, N. & Meese, R. (eds), International Legal Issues Arising under the United Nations Decade of International Law, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague/Boston/London, 1995, pp. 999–1012Google Scholar; J. Patrnogic, “Humanitarian assistance — humanitarian intervention“, ibid., pp. 1013–1034; Corten, O. & Klein, P., Droit d'ingérence ou obligation de réaction?, 2nd ed., Bruylant, Brussels, 1996.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, op. cit. (note 10), p. 615, para. 31.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., p. 616, § 32.

¹⁰² Ibid., p. 615, § 31.

¹⁰³ See on this question: David, E., Principes de droit des conflits armés, 2nd ed., Bruylant, Brussels, 1999, pp. 665–668.Google Scholar